Posted on 06/21/2004 10:19:15 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
President Bush plans to unveil next month a sweeping mental health initiative that recommends screening for every citizen and promotes the use of expensive antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs favored by supporters of the administration.
The New Freedom Initiative, according to a progress report, seeks to integrate mentally ill patients fully into the community by providing "services in the community, rather than institutions," the British Medical Journal reported.
Critics say the plan protects the profits of drug companies at the expense of the public.
The initiative began with Bush's launch in April 2002 of the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, which conducted a "comprehensive study of the United States mental health service delivery system."
The panel found that "despite their prevalence, mental disorders often go undiagnosed" and recommended comprehensive mental health screening for "consumers of all ages," including preschool children.
The commission said, "Each year, young children are expelled from preschools and childcare facilities for severely disruptive behaviors and emotional disorders."
Schools, the panel concluded, are in a "key position" to screen the 52 million students and 6 million adults who work at the schools.
The commission recommended that the screening be linked with "treatment and supports," including "state-of-the-art treatments" using "specific medications for specific conditions."
The Texas Medication Algorithm Project, or TMAP, was held up by the panel as a "model" medication treatment plan that "illustrates an evidence-based practice that results in better consumer outcomes."
The TMAP -- started in 1995 as an alliance of individuals from the pharmaceutical industry, the University of Texas and the mental health and corrections systems of Texas -- also was praised by the American Psychiatric Association, which called for increased funding to implement the overall plan.
But the Texas project sparked controversy when a Pennsylvania government employee revealed state officials with influence over the plan had received money and perks from drug companies who stand to gain from it.
Allen Jones, an employee of the Pennsylvania Office of the Inspector General says in his whistleblower report the "political/pharmaceutical alliance" that developed the Texas project, which promotes the use of newer, more expensive antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs, was behind the recommendations of the New Freedom Commission, which were "poised to consolidate the TMAP effort into a comprehensive national policy to treat mental illness with expensive, patented medications of questionable benefit and deadly side effects, and to force private insurers to pick up more of the tab."
Jones points out, according to the British Medical Journal, companies that helped start the Texas project are major contributors to Bush's election funds. Also, some members of the New Freedom Commission have served on advisory boards for these same companies, while others have direct ties to TMAP.
Eli Lilly, manufacturer of olanzapine, one of the drugs recommended in the plan, has multiple ties to the Bush administration, BMJ says. The elder President Bush was a member of Lilly's board of directors and President Bush appointed Lilly's chief executive officer, Sidney Taurel, to the Homeland Security Council.
Of Lilly's $1.6 million in political contributions in 2000, 82 percent went to Bush and the Republican Party.
Another critic, Robert Whitaker, journalist and author of "Mad in America," told the British Medical Journal that while increased screening "may seem defensible," it could also be seen as "fishing for customers."
Exorbitant spending on new drugs "robs from other forms of care such as job training and shelter program," he said.
However, a developer of the Texas project, Dr. Graham Emslie, defends screening.
"There are good data showing that if you identify kids at an earlier age who are aggressive, you can intervene ... and change their trajectory."
"Gee, I love you too."
"Does anyone notice a pattern here?"
Yes, I do.
Oh dear, did they go and change the rules without sending me the memo?
Last I heard, we had -- and treasured -- the "secret vote" in this country.
If things have changed that radically so that we no longer have that option, then I guess I won't vote at all.
Unless, that is, we've "progressed" to the mandatory vote, in which case I guess I'll just vote for whomever I'm ordered to vote for, like any Good Citizen would do.
Start with members of Congress.
What's very sad is this: HIPPA is not friendly for priests or clergy wanting to go to hosptials to visit anyone from their congregation. They cannot get information over the phone or once they get to the hospital. What about those people who do not have family...who are lying in their beds afraid and probably needing comfort more than ever?!
'Statist' is a great term.....and a very true one here...
I'm starting to get the impression that no one will ever answer that simple question.
Do you have any idea of why this might be?
Did he have Oprah crying too? Not that that would be a big deal-Oprah cries at commode flushings.
You've never heard of 'consider the source'? When one knows the integrity and background of the source, such as world nut daily, then the criticism may fly.
Nevermind is right; you misstated yourself, right???
YOU'RE RIGHT!!!!! How could I have been so blind????
I'd tell you, but then I'd have to bill you.
I disagree, based simply on my own observations over the years.
I called you insane and made references to your 'sanity' (I was being flippant). I apologize for calling you a name and for being flippant. sincerely sorry.
Accepted.
There are even more provisions that will go into effect in 2005, no matter who is president. It goes in stages. HIPAA was enacted into law under President Clinton, and it goes into effect in stages.
Do you see any apology here? No? Good. There isn't one.
Aw-w-w, go on and hold your breath, Don. No one here would take offense at that.
Wrong.
I would.
No matter how many times you repost the same thing, time and time and time again. Let me ask you this. If the President had said: "Every adult with cancer must have an individualized plan of care coordinating services among programs and across agencies." Would you have assumed that he was proposing every American to have federally subsidized cancer screenings?
|
Welcome back. I'm surprised to see you here, given your dramatic announcement of departure earlier. For someone so quick to alert the Admin Moderator, you certainly seem to enjoy inciting others.
You know he has this freedom thing going on.
Okay, I laughed. ;-D
Your sweet darling buddy was talking about me without pinging me. Plus, I got some FReepmail. Guess what it was about? ;-D
Don Joe: Do you have any idea of why this might be?
I do know that Rx's for pschotropic drugs for school age children increased 800% between 1990 and 2000. I suspect that mandating that the states have comprehensive programs might increase it even more.
Good God, you're a real prize, y'know?
Let me tell you a little story.
Many years ago, my late mother, when she was still alive, told me about a night she spent playing chess with my ex-wife-to-be.
My mother won the first game. My "wife" insisted on a rematch, saying "I know what I did wrong", and insisting "I know I can win this time."
So, they played another game.
My mother won.
My soon-to-be-ex-wife insisted on another game.
Yup, you guessed it. Same outcome, same protests, same badgering for yet another game.
It was getting late. My mother was getting tired. So my mother said OK, we'll play another game.
My mother threw the game, to get it over with.
My not-yet-ex jumped for joy, gleefully proclaiming, "I won! I won! See? I TOLD you I could win! I won! I WON!"
And that's how the evening ended.
Well, it's getting late, and I'm getting tired.
You win, dear.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.